'Monogamous' Gays Can Serve in ELCA (Largest Lutheran Denomination Split on Divisive Issue)

Washington Post ^ | 8/21/2009 | jacqueline Salmon

[MHGinTN]

"Abstinent gays are tempted in a different way, as long as they do not fall into temptation and ACT on their lust, they should be allowed to serve." So says the gay apologist, SeekAndFind.

You are missing the point of the exchange, it would appear on purpose: sexual degeneracy is a lifestyle choice; the truly regenerated soul will not seek to identify itself by the sexual proclivities which drove the life before Christ's Grace, so if the sexual degenerate still seeks to be identified by the previous degeneracy, that soul is not regenerated.

You really ought to try Jesus, he is the Soter, the Deliverer from evil. Homosexuality as a choice is evil. You can be delivered from evil. That's why Jesus took upon himself a body, suffered and died, then rose again from the tomb.

Peddle your tolerance for evil to someone else, I will not compromise with you and the sexual degenerates.

[Gay State Conservative]

"Monogamous" homosexuals.What do they constitute...about 1.1% of all homosexuals?

[SoConPubbie]

Abstinent gays are tempted in a different way, as long as they do not fall into temptation and ACT on their lust, they should be allowed to serve.

You can either choose your understanding or you can choose God's commands. The choice is yours.

Abstinent gays implies they still have the disease or the desire but are not acting on it. According to Jesus, this is the same thing as acting on it:

Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The same concept applies for each and every sin.

So, you can either side with God or side with your feeble understanding.

"Choose this day whom you will serve...."

[SeekAndFind]

Homosexuality as a choice is evil. You can be delivered from evil.

I NEVER said homosexuality was not EVIL. I did say that there are DIFFERENT MANIFESTATIONS of evil, homosexual lust being one of them. But so is heterosexual lust.

If one is tempted but does NOT CHOOSE to give in to the temptation, one does not sin. Therefore I don't understand the one-sided condemnation of clergy who are tempted by homosexual lust and on the other hand, forgetting the clergy who are likewise tempted by heterosexual lust. Giving in to either one of them are PERSONAL CHOICES.

Is Jim Baker's adultery with a woman any less reprehensible than Ted Haggard's lying with a male prostitute ?

Both are abomination to the Lord.

That's why Jesus took upon himself a body, suffered and died, then rose again from the tomb.

Since I believe this like you do, I have no further comments regarding this statement.

[SeekAndFind]

Abstinent gays implies they still have the disease or the desire but are not acting on it. According to Jesus, this is the same thing as acting on it:

If this is your understanding, then we are all in trouble. We have heterosexual male pastors who still have the disease or the desire after pretty women but are not acting on it. Is it then your contention that ANY PASTOR who is tempted by these desires ( but do not act to fulfill it ) be banned from the clergy ? If so, you'd have practically no clergy to begin with.

[MHGinTN]

Sadly, you do not appear to comprehend what you have been led to argue. Note the following from your reasoning:

"Is Jim Baker's adultery with a woman any less reprehensible than Ted Haggard's lying with a male prostitute?"

With this question as a foundation for trying to make claims to tolerate the degenerate so long as they are resisting temptation, you reveal the twisted nature of your own thinking! Instead of focusing upon the Deliverer, you would have us focus upon the abject failure of highly regarded, still unregenerate men who held themselves and their lusts as superior to the deliverance Jesus brings to the human soul by placing His Life int he human spirit!

Why would you try to focus the discussion on the 'contradiction inherent in Haggert's or Baker's life in opposition to their profession'? To make room for tolerating the contradiction between the sexual degenerate's profession and the reality of their living! Then, when you are called on the duplicity of such apologetics, you and others resort to conflating the unregenerate known by their actions, with the saved in Christ falling on occasion into temptation, who, when they fall, seek the throne of forgiveness.

Did you miss the lesson taught by Paul in Romans Chapter one: 1:21&22 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
1:24&25 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.

You might ask yourself: 'If God gave them up to the lusts of their hearts, were they under the law when given up or under Grace?'

The very nature of continuing to identify the self by the degeneracy which holds their heart is evidence that they are under the law not Grace.

You are alive in at least two dimensions, body and soul. The Delivered soul has a third dimension of Life, the spirit with the earnest of the inheritance within, God's Life, making such an one living under Grace rather than the law. The story of the Prodigal Son might be helpful.

While off in the pig sty, the son was under the law. When he set his mind to return to his father's jurisdiction, he walked into Grace, as evidenced by his father running to meet him on the road. Now ask yourself, 'under what regime did the son who had remained at home believe he lived?' Why undert the law of course! And he was jealous of the Grace his father extended to the Prodigal Son. But in reality, the son who remained at home could always have know the same Grace. And as a further elsson, read the book of Ruth. The story heats up when Ruth seeks grace by gleening in the harvested fields, to feed her and her mother-in-law, Naomi. It ends with Ruth and Obed living under Grace of the kinsman Redeemer, and there is no further chapter of Ruth crawling around in the fields picking up grain fallen during harvest, for she has right to the barn full of Grain, the storehouse of Grace.

[SeekAndFind]

"Is Jim Baker's adultery with a woman any less reprehensible than Ted Haggard's lying with a male prostitute?"

With this question as a foundation for trying to make claims to tolerate the degenerate so long as they are resisting temptation, you reveal the twisted nature of your own thinking! Instead of focusing upon the Deliverer, you would have us focus upon the abject failure of highly regarded, still unregenerate men who held themselves and their lusts as superior to the deliverance Jesus brings to the human soul by placing His Life int he human spirit!

My friend, why would the above question I posed by interpreted as TOLERATING the degenerate ? The asking of the question should imply that I DO NOT tolerate sexual degeneracy in both forms --- heterosexual or homosexual.

As for "highly regarded" men --- that is exactly my point -- NO ONE, NO MATTER HOW HIGHLY REGARDED IS IMMUNE FROM temptation.

The problem I have is this -- Christians mostly focus on ONE FORM of degeneracy (homosexual lust) and then take for granted the other form of degeneracy ( heterosexual lust ). That is a very unbalanced view. If you won't tolerate one, you should not tolerate the other.

As for focusing on the deliverer, of course we should. But to do that, we have to KNOW the sin He is delivering us from, and it is not simply sexual lust ( in both forms ), but lust of other things ( e.g. money, power, etc.).

And here's my point again --- pastors are tempted by ALL FORMS of lusts ( be it sexual or material ). When a pastor is tempted, but through God's grace, does not fall for the temptation, we do not then say that the pastor is not fit for his position. Therefore, if a pastor is tempted by sexual lust ( heterosexual or homosexual ) but through God's help, does not fall for it ( i.e. remains celibate, or is abstinent ), why should the pastor not be fit to continue being a pastor ? *THAT* is my point.

[MHGinTN]

This will be my final post to you because I sense by discernment that you are serving the father of lies, as your effort to purposely dissemble what I wrote attests.

You quote partially from what I wrote in order to mischaracterize the message. THAT is a technique used extensively by deceivers and liars, as Satan used the technique int eh Garden to woo Eve.

Here is the entire sentence, then what you tried to lift out of context in order to mischaracterize the message:

My actual sentence: "With this question as a foundation for trying to make claims to tolerate the degenerate so long as they are resisting temptation, you reveal the twisted nature of your own thinking!"

You purposely left off the 'so long as they are resisting temptation'. Your plea is specious in that aspect of your twisting the issue to tolerate the unregenerate as leaders so long as they are not caught acting upon the lusts of their unregenerate soul. You apparently do not comprehend that the delivered soul is under the guidance of the Life of God, in the spirit of man. And under such guidance the moment of tempting is the near simultaneous moment of God's still small voice within instructing to flee from the temptation so it has no power to corrode His children! That still small voice is not heard by the unregenerate soul, yet you would dissemble the lesson in order to persuade tolerance for those unregenerates who are resisting acting on their temptations. The leadership in the Church must be by regenerate souls, not imitated by the unregenerate mightily resisting temptations. For you see, even the mighty fall to temptation since it is their nature, as your two examples so vividly illustrate. Yet you want to dissemble their lesson to diminish the power of God's Spirit in the human spirit as deliverer from temptation.

You are seeking to deceive by mischaracterizing the message which strikes at the heart of your effort to dissemble the actual issue of temptation and the victory over same which the Deliverer accomplishes when His Life is placed as the earnest of inheritance into the human spirit, which then teaches the human soul to be obedient to the righteousness of God.

You are deceptive and in being such you serve the father of lies, wittingly or unwittingly. You would rewrite The story of Ruth to have her once again out in the fields picking up fallen grains for sustenance when she is heir to the Grace in the Barn of the Kinsman Redeemer. You would rename Obed (worship) to be Jacob (twister).

Get thee behind me, Satan. Loose your grasp on the mind of this poster, SeekAndFind. Cease the conflation attempts in this discussion.

[MHGinTN]

The argument from SeekAndFind is a prime example of having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof. The form of godliness is not regeneration, it is imitation. The pleading to tolerate the unregenerate and allow them to take leadership rolls is the essence of corruption. But then, so many do not comprehend what is 'the power thereof' so they substitute the effrot of men and women to resist temptation as an empowerment of human effort, which Satan can always sweep aside when he chooses the moment to do so. When 'tempted' to deny Jesus Risen, each of the Apostles--including Paul, under threat of death praised God for His deliverance from their temptation to deny Him and died, sometimes in a heinous, torturous way. THAT is the power of God, undenied.

[Alamo-Girl]

The form of godliness is not regeneration, it is imitation. The pleading to tolerate the unregenerate and allow them to take leadership rolls is the essence of corruption. But then, so many do not comprehend what is 'the power thereof' so they substitute the effrot of men and women to resist temptation as an empowerment of human effort, which Satan can always sweep aside when he chooses the moment to do so. When 'tempted' to deny Jesus Risen, each of the Apostles--including Paul, under threat of death praised God for His deliverance from their temptation to deny Him and died, sometimes in a heinous, torturous way. THAT is the power of God, undenied.

Indeed. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[SeekAndFind]

This will be my final post to you because I sense by discernment that you are serving the father of lies, as your effort to purposely dissemble what I wrote attests.

You can post as much as you like, I am not stopping you. My purpose in posting is to engage in a discussion/reason, not to attack people as in what you are doing.

Having said that... let's see what we have based on your response....

Here is the entire sentence, then what you tried to lift out of context in order to mischaracterize the message:

My actual sentence: "With this question as a foundation for trying to make claims to tolerate the degenerate so long as they are resisting temptation, you reveal the twisted nature of your own thinking!"

Again, I fail to see where I have misunderstood or twisted what you said. I very clearly said that I DO NOT TOLERATE ANY DEGENERATE ACTIONS BE THEY THE RESULT OF LUST AFTER PERSONS OF ONE OWN SEX OR THE OPPOSITE. You obviously ignored what I said in order to indulge in some fantasy ideas of your own.

Let's continue...

Your plea is specious in that aspect of your twisting the issue to tolerate the unregenerate as leaders so long as they are not caught acting upon the lusts of their unregenerate soul.

Nope, do not misunderstand me... I did not say " so long as they are not caught acting upon the lusts of their unregenerate soul.". I said AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT ACT ON THEIR LUST OR TEMPTATION REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE CAUGHT OR NOT.

Let me be clear about this --- character is who you are when no one is watching -- I believe this. You SIN when you ACT on your lust regardless of whether people know it or not. Having said that, I again re-iterate --- everyone, you and me and clergymen included are tempted by lust all the time. This lust come in various forms -- it can be lust after things, power, or men and women of the same or opposite sex outside marriage. Therefore, I re-iterate that because such temptation is common to us all, to disqualify a celibate and abstinent clergyman simply because he is tempted by lust ( regardless of its nature ) is to ascribe to oneself the power of omniscience. You cannot know the innermost inclinations of a person, you can only know it when he ACTS. A clergyman can only be disqualifed from serving when he ACTS on his lust.

Therefore, I submit that a policy that ostracizes a person who is tempted by lust for people of the same sex ( without acting on it ) without considering that there are those who are tempted by lust for people of the opposite sex is one sided and willfully blind.

Hence, a policy that says -- we recognize temptations in all forms. We do not disqualify qualifed men who are tempted from the clergy as long as they do not succumb to their respective temptations -- is a most reasonable one.

[SoConPubbie]

Let me be clear about this --- character is who you are when no one is watching -- I believe this. You SIN when you ACT on your lust regardless of whether people know it or not.

You are still confusing sin with temptation.

Remember the words of Jesus:

Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Therefore, sin is not just the action, but the sinful desire of the heart. It is the LUST that defines the sin, not just the looking(or physical action) at another person because of the LUST.

This is what MHGinTN has been trying to communicate to you.

Christ came to not just forgive men/women of their sins, but to give them power over their sins.

Furthermore, the last thing a regenerated sinner, be it a Homosexual or serial adulterer or anyone suffering from any other type of sin is going to do, is refer to themselves as a Homosexual, Serial Adulterer, or whatever the sin is. Because each of those labels imply an active condition which goes counter to the message of the Gospel of being free from your sin.

For as the Apostle Paul stated:

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Temptation is from the outside, not the inside.

Jesus said "Be ye holy as I am holy"

He did not say "Try to be holy". He did not say "You will not be holy until you pass over in death".

He commanded "Be ye holy as I am holy". A positive immediate command with no sub-clauses.

[SeekAndFind]

You are still confusing sin with temptation.

I don't think I am. I am perfectly aware of Jesus' teaching about inner lust and how it is considered adultery in one's heart.

What I am doing is WONDERING how a church or a denomination can JUDGE a person's heart without the person actually committing the act.

How are you for instance, as a pastoral committee member going to decide whether a person is qualified to be pastor or bishop or not based on what is in his heart ?

Are you going to EXPLICITLY ask the question --- HAVE YOU EVER COMMITTED ADULTERY IN YOUR HEART ? or HAVE YOU EVER HAD HOMOSEXUAL DESIRES IN YOUR HEART ? or HAVE YOU EVER LUSTED AFTER MATERIAL THINGS IN YOUR HEART ?

Are these questions standard questions in your church or in your committee ?

I can tell you honestly that if you asked me this question as an applicant, I will honestly answer YES to the first and third question above. Would that sin-in-my-heart then disqualify me from being pastor ? ( assuming I was educationally qualified and applied for such a position ).

Would it be better for me to lie and say NO in order to get a better chance of being ordained than be honest ?

Furthermore, the last thing a regenerated sinner, be it a Homosexual or serial adulterer or anyone suffering from any other type of sin is going to do, is refer to themselves as a Homosexual, Serial Adulterer, or whatever the sin is. Because each of those labels imply an active condition which goes counter to the message of the Gospel of being free from your sin.

If it were an ACTIVE CONDITION, the person would be LIVING IT OUT either openly or secretly (e.g., Ted Haggard) and if he did, I would have NO OBJECTIONS to having him DEFROCKED.

However, it is not right to defrock a person from being a clergyman simply for his confession that he as lusted in his heart. This sin-in-your-heart affects EVERYONE ( even St. Paul admits to it in Romans 7 ) and if you disqualified everyone on that basis, you will have no clergy to serve at all.

[SoConPubbie]

However, it is not right to defrock a person from being a clergyman simply for his confession that he as lusted in his heart. This sin-in-your-heart affects EVERYONE ( even St. Paul admits to it in Romans 7 ) and if you disqualified everyone on that basis, you will have no clergy to serve at all.

I am afraid your definition and perception of this issue and those we are talking about, the ECLA, are not the same thing.

In the context of what the ECLA is talking about, it is someone still suffering from the Sin or Desire of Homosexuality, else there would be no need to mention the word Homosexual or make a big point about it.

They are trying to mainstream the idea of Homosexuality, while sanctimoniously pretending to be understanding and of a more loving nature: their words and action prove this to be true.

Once again, there is no need to make mention of someone being a Homosexual, as there is no need to make mention of a Liar, as there is no need to make mention of an Adulterer in referring to those who are to be members of the clergy.

The basic requirements for those in leadership positions in the Church is an active and up-to-date relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in which we are not sinning or suffering from any sinful condition AND, at least for the position of Pastor, should be a calling from God for the position. Anything less, and the person involved will not only be ill-fitted for the position, but will be responsible for the souls of the Men/Women/Children that they will mislead.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Heheh, I see what they did there.

“Monogamous” sodomites, a thing much rarer than "honest" politicians.

Those Lutherans are crafty devils.

[SoConPubbie]

Are these questions standard questions in your church or in your committee ?

I can tell you honestly that if you asked me this question as an applicant, I will honestly answer YES to the first and third question above. Would that sin-in-my-heart then disqualify me from being pastor ? ( assuming I was educationally qualified and applied for such a position ).

Would it be better for me to lie and say NO in order to get a better chance of being ordained than be honest ?

Concerning the standard questions in our church, our doctrinal theology states that no man/woman will be in a position of authority if they are not up-to-date in their relationship with Jesus. This means, of course, that they are not in a state of sin, that they have been forgiven and their heart has been changed and they have been given power over their sin by their Redeemer. This removes the necessity and impossibility of "judging" a person's heart. Furthermore, their testimony will precede them before they ever get to the point of seeking a position of authority in the church and if the Board of the church is being responsible in their decision making process, they will be using that person's personal testimony (not a verbal testimony but the testimony of that person's past actions) in the decision-making process.

If they cannot answer that request honestly in the affirmative, they will not be given the position of authority.

IF they are lying, it will show itself soon enough and they will be removed from that position.

With regard to your question about lying, it would be better for you, if you were in that situation, to be honest with God, the committee, and yourself and withdraw yourself from that process UNTIL you repent and let God make things right in your heart.

[SeekAndFind]

With regard to your question about lying, it would be better for you, if you were in that situation, to be honest with God, the committee, and yourself and withdraw yourself from that process UNTIL you repent and let God make things right in your heart.

So, you are telling me that most pastors who are serving in church today DO NOT and HAVE NOT committed any lust in their hearts at all.

[SeekAndFind]

This means, of course, that they are not in a state of sin, that they have been forgiven and their heart has been changed and they have been given power over their sin by their Redeemer

How do you interprete that ? Does this mean they don't sin any longer ? Does this mean that their state is perfect and they do not sin in their hearts at all ?

[SeekAndFind]

IF they are lying, it will show itself soon enough and they will be removed from that position.

And THAT is my point. You cannot determine that until it happens. You can only make an educated guess.

[SoConPubbie]

However, it is not right to defrock a person from being a clergyman simply for his confession that he as lusted in his heart. This sin-in-your-heart affects EVERYONE ( even St. Paul admits to it in Romans 7 ) and if you disqualified everyone on that basis, you will have no clergy to serve at all.

You have taken the scripture in Romans Ch. 7 out of context:

Romans 7

1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


Many people read this scripture out of context to the detriment of their soul thinking it excuses them for the sinning they do or the sin they find themselves trapped in.

Pay particular attention to vs. 5 and 6 for these scriptures point to a complete deliverence to sin that is further strengthened by verses in Chapter 8:

5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Furthermore from Romans ch. 8:

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.


So Jesus did not just die to forgive you of your sins, but to save you from the power of sin by giving you the ability to live above that sin.

Chapter 7 just details the struggle of a man who has been awakened to his sinful state, basically a state of Repentence where he realizes that without the help of a benevolent God, he is doomed.

Chapter 8 details the salvation of that sinner both from past sins and the power to not sin anymore, after he has released control of his will to God and believed the Gospel of Redemption given to us by Jesus Christ.